Executing a foreign judgement: how does it work? Procedural law attorney explains!

In a recent case, the Amsterdam District Court ruled on the enforcement of a foreign judgement. How did they go about that? Procedural-law attorney Lennard Noordzij explains.

Execution of a foreign judgement

In the case in question, (a representative of) the Republic of Serbia requested the Amsterdam District Court to allow the enforcement of three judgements in a case against a Dutch company based in the Netherlands and which was bought before a court in Serbia.

Article 431: disguised exequatur procedure

In the first instance, the court noted that the Serbian judgements could not initially be recognised in the Netherlands on the basis of a provision in a binding Dutch treaty or in a European regulation. The court therefore based its assessment on Dutch law, namely Article 431 of the Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering [Dutch Code of Civil Procedure], which relates to whether judgements can be enforced in the Netherlands. This is a so-called “disguised exequatur procedure”. In principle, Article 431 creates jurisdiction for the Dutch courts by allowing the possibility for cases to be reheard and settled in the Netherlands.

Conditions for a foreign decision in the Netherlands

In 2014, the De Hoge Raad [Supreme Court of the Netherlands] made a ruling in the “Gazprom decision” that, in principle, a foreign decision can be recognised in the Netherlands if the following four cumulative conditions are met:

(i) the jurisdiction of the court that made the decision is based on a ground of jurisdiction that is generally acceptable by international standards;(ii) the foreign decision was made in legal proceedings that meet the requirements of proper and adequate legal proceedings;(iii) the recognition of the foreign decision is not contrary to Dutch public policy;(iv) the foreign decision is not incompatible with a decision of a Dutch court in a case between the same parties, or with an earlier decision of a foreign court in a case between the same parties in a dispute concerning the same subject matter and based on the same cause of action, provided that the earlier decision is eligible for recognition in the Netherlands.

Treatment of the points by the court

The court addressed these four points in the proceedings. The court found (i) that the Serbian court was right to consider itself competent because the unjust enrichment of the Dutch party and the damage suffered by the Republic of Serbia both occurred in Serbia.

“Fair trial” in Serbia

Secondly (ii) and thirdly (iii), the court found that the Serbian judgements, in their origin or content, were not in conflict with the principles and values regarded as fundamental to Dutch legal order, such as the right to a “fair trial”. The court emphasised that, in the case of (ii) and (iii), it is irrelevant whether the foreign decision is substantively correct or not. This means a judicial decision, even if it is considered to be incorrect in terms of content within the Dutch legal system, can be recognised. Finally (iv), the Court found that the Serbian judgements did not conflict with any other judicial decision.

Procedural law attorney in the enforcement of a foreign judgement

The court therefore ordered the Dutch party to comply with the Serbian judgements and to pay an amount of approximately 51 million Serbian Dinars (around €440,000) to the Republic of Serbia. The Dutch party must also pay the legal costs of approximately €10,000. An attorney can help you with questions about the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgement in the Netherlands.